Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 23 disobedience to superior officer Court: rajasthan Page 6 of about 100 results (0.125 seconds)

Sakhawat Ali and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Jheema Choudhary and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Ganpat Singh Deval and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Ganga Vishan and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Raju Gehlot Vs. State of Raj. and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Chena Ram and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Federation of Sand Stone M.i. Asso Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Manoj Kumar Chahar Vs. R.P.S.C., Ajmer and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... response to the advertisement published by the commission for recruitment to the post of teacher gr.iii, primary and upper primary schools of the state under the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994 and the rules framed thereunder, the appellant-writ petitioner offered his candidature in ex-servicemen obc category 3 alongwith requisite testimonials. he was permitted to appear in the written ..... bhansali mr.n.r.choudhary for the appellant. judgment by the court (per hon'ble mr.amitava roy, cj) on application no.56/2013 under section 5 of the limitation act for condonation of delay the appeal is belated one and for condonation of delay, an application has been filed. the application discloses that the certified copy of the judgment and .....

State of Rajasthan Vs. Rama and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1973(6)WLN934

..... ornaments.36. vehement argument was addressed to us in regard to the unfair investigation and it was submitted that because of this unfairness the statements under section 27, evidence act should be disbelieved. reliance was placed on ghazi v. state : air1966all142 and amin v. state : air1958all293 . in ghazi's case : air1966all142 the learned judges ..... emperor 29 cr. l.j. 1009 (1014); in re kallameedi chenna reddi 42 cr.l.j 582 tahsilder singh v. state : air1958all214 and delhi administration v. bal kishan : 1972crilj1 mr. purohit appearing for the respondent rama and kanwar singh urged that it was highly improbable that this witness would have been able to identify rama ..... it. amin's case : air1958all293 , however, lays down that articles 20(3) of the constitution of india applies to discoveries under section 27 of the evidence act, if these discoveries are the results of compulsion, and the scooe of section 27 is itself restricted by article 20(3) of the constitution and the discoveries .....

Sanjay Agarwal Vs. Smt. Krishna Agarwal

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR2008Raj194

..... 7. learned counsel for the non-petitioner-mother has made a preliminary submission that as the matter relating to guardianship is covered under the family courts act, 1984 ('the act of 1984'), this revision petition under section 115 of the code of civil procedure is not competent because the order passed by the family court could ..... revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.02.2008 as passed by the district judge, merta in the proceedings under the guardians and wards act, 1890 ('the act of 1890') rejecting an application moved by the petitionerfather under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure and rejecting his contention that the ..... of the case and the law applicable. 9. the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this revision petition with reference to the provisions of the family courts act, 1984 has only been noted to be rejected as rather misconceived. admittedly, the proceedings in question have been taken up with the district court at merta .....